[FOM] How much of math is logic?
joeshipman@aol.com
joeshipman at aol.com
Wed Feb 28 20:48:26 EST 2007
Chow:
>My suggestion is that, in order to avoid arguments about contentious
>topics that are tangential to your (first) main question, you rephrase
>your question as follows:
>
>For suitable "X", one can say that ZFC = logic + AxInf + X. Just how
weak
>can "X" be made to be?
I do want to avoid tangential discussions, and I like this suggestion.
To clarify, it is also the case that one can say PA = logic + Y; and we
also want to know how weak Y can be; what I was really driving at is,
for the weakest such Y, how close logic + AxInf +Y comes to ZFC.
This deals with the deductive side of mathematics. For the semantic
side, where I don't care about proof calculi but just expressive power,
my question is "what mathematical X are not interpretable in
second-order logic?"
>I am still interested in a summary of what Russell did. I can't
believe
>that I'm the only one on FOM who doesn't know exactly what degree of
>strength each of the assumptions in PM buys you.
I don't know this exactly either; I believe Russell could recover
elementary number theory without needing his reducibility axiom or
Choice, but I am not familiar with the details. Can anyone else help
here?
-- JS
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
More information about the FOM
mailing list